dungeonsfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Attacks Variant (3.5e Variant Rule)
Deletion "Acknowledging that something sucks is not the same as making it not suck. If this is to stay, it needs to be made into not-suck." LOL. Truly hilarious, but this doesn't constitute as an actual explanation. Simply saying it sucks without actually presenting possible loose ends, metagame or powergame possibilities doesn't really give a problem with game balance as much as it does personal taste for the system. Is this wiki site devoted purely to your personal tastes and nothing else? If you just have an intuitive sense that this wouldn't work could you at least try to explain this or give examples? :I already gave the examples in the old delete template. Instead of trying to fix these problems, you posted up something that acknowledged these problems but did nothing to actually fix them and thus make the variant rule useful in a game. The rogue problem. The problem of...anyone with a high dexterity at a low level (cleric archer, or archer in general). Surgo 15:09, September 9, 2009 (UTC) ::No actually I did. Read the powergame analysis in more detail. By actually putting a restriction on these issues it resolves the hypothetical conflict you proposed. Even with a high Dexterity would accumulate a penalty too grave for a low level character to endure. If there are other things you've thought of that could break this rule please let me know I'd be happy to keep working on it. :::You're basically giving archers another free attack every round. There's another part that's very important too: it doesn't matter what the penalties are, whether or not they are too grave to ignore. There is no penalty for trying and failing. So what does that mean? It means that every rogue, every archer, now takes as many attacks as they possibly can at every point. This slows down the game tremendously. Full attacks were only bearable before because they happened at high levels. Now even levels 1-5, archers and rogues are going to be taking 5 attacks per turn (or more, with rapid shot and TWF). That's not a round I'd want to endure sitting through. Surgo 15:19, September 9, 2009 (UTC) ::::Well an archer could just take rapid shot, multishot or what-have-you anyway before 6th level. I think your concern about more than one attack before 6th level is moot since there are 14 more levels where this would occur anyway in a more complex pattern. You do bring up a good point though and that is that Dex-based attackers have an edge where others have lost. I altered the limitation to be based on level instead of Dexterity for balance purposes. :::::And they still can take these feats. Now in addition to taking these feats, they get another free attack for no good reason and the ability to try another one for no good reason. Surgo 15:23, September 9, 2009 (UTC) ::::::As they could using the normal system. What's your point? Given the fact that everyone has the same altered rule it doesn't appear to be advantageous to one or the other more. You seem to be stubbornly holding to the fact that it is "different" rather than actually unbalanced. :::::::It still benefits archers more than everybody else because archers are taking more full attacks than anyone else, but that's besides the point. I suppose if you really want everyone to be able to take more attacks, that's fine (my main objection has already been dealt with). But you'll just need to note that combat is now substantially more dangerous for melee folks at low levels. Surgo 15:30, September 9, 2009 (UTC)